It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Impeachment hearing so far who is winning or losing?

page: 8
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 03:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
Schiff looks paranoid...just like he does here: twitter.com...


And here, LOL.




posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 03:37 AM
link   
Jim “Gym” Jordan also had a busy day ...


edit on 14-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Jim “Gym” Jordan also had a busy day ...


So it is true that the left really does suck at memes. I thought it was a myth, but apparently not.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:07 AM
link   
a reply to: mtnshredder

Too close to home?

If it didn’t have the intended effect, you’d have no need to comment ... LOL.

Raa raaa.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:09 AM
link   
Since I'm not watching the thing, I went to BBC and checked what they say about the proceedings.

I must say I'm overwhelmed. Apparently the key thing is "some guy overheard another guy saying...nothing too damning...making inquiries...".

Is this it ??????!????

Jesus...new levels of absurd are being reached here. I dont understand how can these people keep their straight faces on and not burst into a hilarious laughter watching all this.

There has to be some other agenda at work here.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:13 AM
link   
We all know what the call says. We have direct witnesses to the call who have stated what the call says.

These Trump officials who didn’t listen in to the original call were aware of the machinations of Guiliani and Co. for months.

It’s absurd to keep claiming at this point that x, y or z witness “wasn’t on the call.” Christ.


edit on 14-11-2019 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:18 AM
link   
a reply to: Veryolduser
Is this possible a red herring? By that I mean the left knows they can't convict so this is really a setup to push Hillery the only one to beat Trump to run in 2020?


edit on 14-11-2019 by PhilbertDezineck because: (no reason given)

edit on 14-11-2019 by PhilbertDezineck because: late disjonited thoughts



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:21 AM
link   
I think Avid Trump Supporters can stop shaking and quaking about the old lady in a pantsuit getting into the race.

If the Dems were to run Hillary again, they deserve to lose. Again.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:22 AM
link   
a reply to: PhilbertDezineck

It's rather puzzling. I cant comprehend what they are trying to achieve. If this is it, then it's over before it started. Why are they wasting everybody's time ? At best they can come out of this with sh** all over their faces for having failed so miserably. I just dont get.

Now I cant wait for the end of this just to see what was their goal anyway...



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 04:26 AM
link   
The questions about the rationale behind the impeachment really only exist if one continues to believe that the two alleged “teams” are on different sides.

Democrats and Republcians both work for the powered Elites. Both parties are Corporate Shills and Whores.

This “impeachment” is another episode in the reality show called “Divide and Rule.”



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 06:07 AM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten


Mr. Taylor's long-windedness notwithstanding, he was clear on some things today, mostly that he knows nothing about this first-hand, only that he was told by so and so that was told by someone else that Trump screwed the pooch, and that he didn't know what was actually said on the phone call. But wait, Mr. Taylor said himself that from meetings he attended with Zelensky, there was ZERO pressure by Trump, no QPQ ever. Boom! Gosh, I almost feel bad for you guys. Almost.


I agree wholeheartedly with this. I kept shaking my head listening wondering how anyone could take this seriously. I played the telephone game when I was in elementary school. It was hilarious how the end of the line was so different from the actual start.

With all the interactions not being in the first person witnessed only reactions from biased hearsay of what others believed or felt, it is useless. Texting is almost as bad, since I have actually had some of my own misinterpreted. There is no clarity in assumptions and hearsay.




I heard something today that makes a lot of sense. The aid was approved last winter. Zelensky was elected in the spring. He's a newcomer so the administration may have put the aid on hold to see if he was actually a good guy and not another corrupt official like Ukraine had just gotten rid of. So not allowing the distribution of the money until they figured out if the new guy is ok or not makes total sense. That the Ukraine needed the money before they got it means NOTHING, they did get it in September AND they didn't know, from their own admission, that it had been withheld.


This deserves to be repeated. This makes absolute sense. The previous President had agreed to investigating 2016 election interference, crowd strike, Biden issue back in Jan/February of this year. Then he was replaced. He was replaced by an unknown tv star actor who portrayed himself as a President. Common sense would be to determine if Zelensky was serious or simply just acting a role.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 06:22 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I respect you so I’m hoping you can help me understand your position.

There are individuals testifying that listened to the Trump-Zelensky call first hand. Vindman for example.

There are other individuals who were aware of the Guiliani/Trump desires to have Ukraine investigate the Bidens over the course of doing their jobs over many months.

Why is there this emphasis on “they weren’t on the call.” Virtually no one was “on the call” including you and I.

How is that a valid critique of their testimony? I really am trying to understand your point.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 06:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

what I dont get is how you can take this seriously...




There are individuals testifying that listened to the Trump-Zelensky call first hand


Testifying that he listened ? Dont you hear yourself ? SO a guy is now gonna, recall verbatim, and we have to take his word on that...what who said and in what context ? and...he will speculate on the motives...and this, you feel, is "evidence"..for impeachment ?



individuals who were aware of the Guiliani/Trump desires to have Ukraine investigate


again..."who were aware of desire"....I mean, that's ironclad if I ever saw one...lock him up !!!!!

Unreal episode.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

The two people actually communicating on this phone call was Trump and Zelensky. They both seem to have viewed the call as a general no quid pro quo conversation. Naturally, one would expect if there was a demand ultimatum made...Zelensky would have shared that with the Ukraine officials or queried the Ambassadors after that call? That did not happen.

Rudy became involved extremely early it seems, before Zelensky was elected. I can see him being involved since he was trying to gather evidence in defense of Trump due to America was expecting Mueller to conclude impeachment for the 2016 election issue. That makes sense to me.

When that didn't happen, they apparently found enough questionable leads and felt it warranted an investigation to ensure it does not occur in our future elections. Rudy had a Headstart and could provide them what he had discovered. Thus became the point man...trump obviously has a country to run and felt delegating that aspect to Rudy was beneficial.

I would like to hear from Guilliani since he is now in the same position as Biden found himself. They both had become the main contact in Ukraine, so they are answerable for any actions /requests taken in the name of the US.

Biden and Rudy should be investigated. Obama or Trump should only be called out if the roads (evidence) lead to them personally.

Edit add: trying to clarify. It is amazing that even with the written word it is difficult to faithfully express my thoughts with clarity. Guess that is why I want better evidence than hearsay and opinions. Even I have just an opinion at this point. I don't mind investigations as long as they include all the facts. When they are biased towards a specific agenda it is more likened to biased polling and not helpful to finding the truth.
edit on 11 14 2019 by CynConcepts because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

Check on who was on the call. Check on what they’ve said. Agreed.

The “quid pro quo” was set up over months of work with Rudy Guiliani and his associates and individuals in the Ukrainian government and the US government. From May onward I believe. SO there is a context around the phone call extending back months. Many of these witnesses were a part of that process of meetings to discuss the matter, etc.

Why shouldn’t these witnesses to the context of the request for a Biden investigation give testimony to what they saw and heard?



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

We have a transcript of the call that Lt. Col. Vindman agrees is correct with the exception of a few trivial words.

That transcript was provided by the White House itself. There is no reason to suspect it’s not the transcript.

So it LITERALLY doesn’t matter if we heard the call or not, or whether the witnesses heard the call ... WE ALL KNOW WHAT WAS SAID.

It is not disputed by anyone, not Trump, Mulvaney, Guiliani, McConnell, Graham etc. that there was a request made to the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens.

Are you disputing that or not?

You are disputing the contention that any of that was illegal, or impeachable. That’s not the point.

You guys keep harping on the idea that no one can testify to ANYTHING if they didn’t listen to the call. That’s just ABSURD.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

What's absurd is you trying to spin this as an impeachable act and now claim that hearsay is much better than direct evidence.

If you didn't listen to the call, then you're kind of a nobody and honestly, Americans have this issue about being accused with 2nd hand accounts.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Why shouldn’t these witnesses to the context of the request for a Biden investigation give testimony to what they saw and heard?


I have no problem with them being heard. I listened. I am questioning on why they did not call out their alarm earlier before the phone call took place. Mostly, they seem to have issue with Rudy's involvement.

As far as the witnesses hearsay opinions would be like you telling me that a real life leprechaun gave your friend his treasure of gold. I then share that with another as a fact and they ask me did I see the gold? Um...no. Did I even find and ask to see the gold for myself? No. I just assumed you would have and you would not deceive me. Your friend had a dream he was sharing, somewhere that bit was left out.

See?



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:28 AM
link   

originally posted by: CynConcepts
a reply to: Gryphon66


Why shouldn’t these witnesses to the context of the request for a Biden investigation give testimony to what they saw and heard?


I have no problem with them being heard. I listened. I am questioning on why they did not call out their alarm earlier before the phone call took place. Mostly, they seem to have issue with Rudy's involvement.

As far as the witnesses hearsay opinions would be like you telling me that a real life leprechaun gave your friend his treasure of gold. I then share that with another as a fact and they ask me did I see the gold? Um...no. Did I even find and ask to see the gold for myself? No. I just assumed you would have and you would not deceive me. Your friend had a dream he was sharing, somewhere that bit was left out.

See?


And those are reasonable questions.

What is not reasonable is the continual chants of “they weren’t even on the call” to discount everything that every witness says.

It’s not hearsay if they testify to meetings that they were in, or memos that they read, or conversations they had with colleagues.

That’s what these folks are doing ... they are recounting the circumstances surrounding the call.

It’s not hearsay if I ask you “CynConcepts, what is your opinion of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call” is it?

Further, an impeachment inquiry is not a trial, so trying to dispute or discount anything because it’s “hearsay” is simply absurd in my opinion.

Leprechauns or not.



posted on Nov, 14 2019 @ 07:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

"It’s not hearsay if I ask you “CynConcepts, what is your opinion of the Trump-Zelensky telephone call” is it?"


Opinions are not facts........Which is why CNN anchors are not journalists........they are opinion hosts.



Opinofact: When someone's opinion get repeated so often that some gullible people believe it is a fact. Standard operating procedure for CNN.
edit on 14-11-2019 by RickinVa because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join